CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Updated Tests for Small-study Effects in Meta-analyses

Open access
Harbord, Roger M., Harris, Ross J., Sterne, Jonathan A. C.·2009·The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata
DOI 10.1177/1536867x0900900202
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article describes an updated version of the metabias command, which provides statistical tests for funnel plot asymmetry. In addition to the previously implemented tests, metabias implements two new tests that are recommended in the recently updated Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins and Green 2008). The first new test, proposed by Harbord, Egger, and Sterne (2006, Statistics in Medicine 25: 3443–3457), is a modified version of the commonly used test proposed by Egger et al. (1997, British Medical Journal 315: 629–634). It regresses Z/[Formula: see text] against [Formula: see text], where Z is the efficient score and V is Fisher's information (the variance of Z under the null hypothesis). The second new test is Peters’ test, which is based on a weighted linear regression of the intervention effect estimate on the reciprocal of the sample size. Both of these tests maintain better control of the false-positive rate than the test proposed by Egger at al., while retaining similar power.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1536867x0900900202

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Steichen T. J., 1998, Stata Technical Bulletin, 41, 9
  2. Steichen T. J., 1998, Stata Technical Bulletin, 44, 3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–307 of 307

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Harbord, R. M., Harris, R. J., & Sterne, J. A. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Health Protection Agency (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Harbord, Roger M.
  • Harris, Ross J.
ORCID
Venue
The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-08
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
197-210
ISSN
  • 1536-867X (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-8734
DOI
10.1177/1536867x0900900202
OpenAlex
W1566635326
Cited by
307
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • The Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
small-study effects, funnel plot asymmetry, publication bias, Stata, Egger's test, false positive rate control, meta-analysis software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review